Sedentism, farming, and agriculture was invented some 10,000 years ago in a region between southeastern Anatolia, Iran, Iraq, and Syria, an area traditionally labeled as the Fertile Crescent. Most of the technology and culture associated with farming including domestic sheep, goat, cattle, and pig originated here. The transition from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle to agriculture and sedentism was considered such a radical change in human ecology that the term Neolithic revolution was coined for it. Some 2,000 years later, the new Neolithic lifestyle appeared in southeastern Europe and shortly afterwards in Central and Mediterranean Europe.

An international research team led by palaeogeneticists of Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (JGU) published a study in the journal Science (open access) showing that the earliest farmers from the Zagros mountains in Iran, i.e., the eastern part of the Fertile Crescent, are neither the main ancestors of Europe’s first farmers nor of modern-day Europeans. “This came as a surprise,” said Farnaz Broushaki, first author of the study and a member of the JGU Palaeogenetics Group. “Our team had only recently shown that early farmers from across Europe have an almost unbroken trail of ancestry leading back to northwest Anatolia. But now it seems that the chain of migration into Europe breaks somewhere in eastern Anatolia.”

According to the team’s previous study, Neolithic settlers from northern Greece and the Marmara Sea region of western Turkey reached central Europe via a Balkan route and the Iberian Peninsula via a Mediterranean route. These colonists brought sedentary life, agriculture, and domestic animals and plants to Europe. New research shows that some of the world’s earliest farmers from Iran were a genetically distinct group and only very distantly related to the first farmers of western Anatolia and Europe.

“It is interesting that people who are genetically so different, who almost certainly looked different and spoke different languages adopted the agricultural lifestyle almost simultaneously in different parts of Anatolia and the Near East,” said Professor Joachim Burger, senior author of the study. “The group of prehistoric inhabitants of the Zagros region separated more than 50,000 years ago from other people of Eurasia and were among the first who invented farming.”

Professor Joachim Burger, his Mainz palaeogeneticist team, and international collaborators have pioneered palaeogenetic research of the Neolithization process in Europe over the last decade. In 2005, they presented the first ancient DNA study on prehistoric European farmers, and in 2009 and 2013 they analyzed their complex interactions with hunter-gatherers. Now they demonstrate that the idea of “ex oriente lux” is true in cultural but not in genetic terms.

Marjan Mashkour, an Iranian archaeozoologist who works at the CNRS in Paris and initiated the study with Burger and Fereidoun Biglari, a prehistoric archaeologist at the National Museum of Iran, added: “The Neolithic way of life originates in the Fertile Crescent, maybe also some Neolithic pioneers started moving from there. But the majority of ancient Iranians did not move west as some would have thought.”

However, they did move east, as the study shows. The research team found that the Iranian genomes represent the main ancestors of modern-day South Asians. Whilst sharing many segments of their genome with Afghani and Pakistani populations, the almost 10,000 year old genomes from the Iranian Zagros mountains were found to be most similar to modern-day Zoroastrians from Iran. “This religious group probably mixed less with later waves of people than others in the region and therefore preserved more of that ancient ancestry,” said Broushaki.

In sum, it seems like at least two highly divergent groups became the world’s first famers: the Zagros people of the Neolithic eastern Fertile Crescent that are ancestral to most modern South Asians and the Aegeans that colonized Europe some 8,000 years ago. “The origin of farming was genetically more complex than we thought and instead of speaking of a single Neolithic center, we should start adopting the idea of a Federal Neolithic Core Zone“, emphasized Burger.
Posts: 2 | From: - | Registered: Jul 2017
| IP: Logged |

@Djehuti - Yeah I will probably be light years behind you guys who seem to be up to date with this kind of stuff.

I only came to message xyyman but his inbox was full. I want help in understanding my DNA Ancestry results. I got the impression that xyyman is up to date on ancestry genetics and know this field well. Are we allowed to post our DNA ancestry results on here?
Posts: 2 | From: - | Registered: Jul 2017
| IP: Logged |

I knew Basal Eurasian/EEF was from Africa. But when I first read the digest several years ago I missed that part when they implied that ANE/WHG?ENA were separated from Basal Eurasian also ....in Africa.

From DNATribes:Quote:Sequential analyses of non-local genetic components in Europe using both autosomal STR and SNP data express ancestral components related to Middle Eastern and North Eurasian populations. Subsequent steps in each iterative analysis reveal deeper genetic relationships to populations of the Indian Subcontinent and Horn of Africa, possibly related to Early European Farmer (EEF) populations that first emerged near the Fertile Crescent as a synthesis integrating migratory hunter-gatherer and sedentary cultures from West Eurasia (possibly Anatolia) within Basal Eurasian populations (possibly the Nile Valley).Results are also consistent with a third element that helped shape European genetic structure: North Eurasian ancestry, related to not only West Asian (Mesopotamian and Caucasus Mountains) populations, but also to Siberian, Native American, and (in later iterations that show deeper relationships) to Asian-Pacific populations. This might reflect contacts between European (WHG) and Siberian (ANE) hunter-gather populations and Eastern Non-African (ENA) populations during the Paleolithic and Mesolithic period, in which Basal Eurasians were geographically separated from Eurasia (possibly near the Nile Valley).As new data become available, including new ancient genomes, it might become possible to further clarify these models of early population history and reveal new insights about the ancestral populations that shaped world genetic structure in Africa, Eurasia, Oceania, and the Americas.

I knew Basal Eurasian/EEF was from Africa. But when I first read the digest several years ago I missed that part when they implied that ANE/WHG?ENA were separated from Basal Eurasian also ....in Africa.

From DNATribes:Quote:Sequential analyses of non-local genetic components in Europe using both autosomal STR and SNP data express ancestral components related to Middle Eastern and North Eurasian populations. Subsequent steps in each iterative analysis reveal deeper genetic relationships to populations of the Indian Subcontinent and Horn of Africa, possibly related to Early European Farmer (EEF) populations that first emerged near the Fertile Crescent as a synthesis integrating migratory hunter-gatherer and sedentary cultures from West Eurasia (possibly Anatolia) within Basal Eurasian populations (possibly the Nile Valley).Results are also consistent with a third element that helped shape European genetic structure: North Eurasian ancestry, related to not only West Asian (Mesopotamian and Caucasus Mountains) populations, but also to Siberian, Native American, and (in later iterations that show deeper relationships) to Asian-Pacific populations. This might reflect contacts between European (WHG) and Siberian (ANE) hunter-gather populations and Eastern Non-African (ENA) populations during the Paleolithic and Mesolithic period, in which Basal Eurasians were geographically separated from Eurasia (possibly near the Nile Valley).As new data become available, including new ancient genomes, it might become possible to further clarify these models of early population history and reveal new insights about the ancestral populations that shaped world genetic structure in Africa, Eurasia, Oceania, and the Americas.

The Mota article revealed the true origins of Eurasians when the researchers reported that West,East and South Africans carried West Asian haplogroups. The Harvard mob led by Reich, had the authors of the Mota article declare their findings were incorrect about the presence of West Asian admixture in Africans. They would have got away with this deception ,except, for the recent Haber et al article which showed that the Touboo and other Central Africans carried the same genes as the early Europeans and Anatolians, who were primarily descendants of the Kushites.

We knows that there was never a migration of Eurasians into Central Africa, but there were African migrations, supported by archaeological and artefactual evidence that originated in Africa, but carried by Africans into Anatolia and Iberia. It was the Kushites that spread haplogroups: R, J and G.

The model is already clear. Haplogroup R, was first introduced into Eurasia by the Khoisan. The Kushites reintroduced Y-Chromosome R, and other so-called Eurasian haplogroups. This is supported by the Weni Inscription that makes it clear the Kushites lived in both Lower and Upper Egypt, the Fezzan and Anatolia. As a result, they called themselves Heqe Khas – Ruler of Kushites.

posted 14. August 201707:50 AM
This chart was created by Arnaiz-Villens, a world-class geneticist using Microsatellite. He was vilified when he came to the same conclusion as I. I did not know about him until within the last 5months. I thought I was the only one who saw the data like it actual is. Sergio and a few others also came to the same conclusion using Cranium-measurements.

The charts shows that East Africa and the Sahara is the source of not only West Africans but also modern Europeans and even some modern peoples of South Asia(the Harrapan Valley civilization-don’t forget what DNATribes concluded about the Neolithic’s). The “orange/yellow” and “red” groups divide in the Sahara. Interestingly the “Green” group originates along the Nile and spreads West and North along the Nile into Greece. That is why Greeks carry so much SSA markers like Sickle Cell etc. The Nile was the divide. Many recent studies have shown that for some reason the Nile was controlled by SSA and divided North Africa. Eg mtDNA H1 and H3, U5b are to the West and in Western Europe. H2 and many other subclades of H, along with U5a is in the Levant and Eastern Europe. BB Culture is to the West and Corded Ware is more East. Both with a Sahara source. R1b to the West and R1a to the East.

The pattern is clear.

If anyone had read the study posted by DDEden on “interesting articles” about the Madagascar. The pattern is observed on what really happened in pre-history. This study covers “initial” OOA. And as I keep telling you all. The first wave was NOT via Arabia. It was across “what is now” the Indian Ocean!!! Autosomally many Madagascan share alleles with South Africans and “black skinned” South East Asians like Filipino and Indonesians. But Cluster Chart shows these “Indonesian” markers are found on the African mainland meaning the Indonesians did not Canoe 15000miles across on the Indian Ocean “back-to-Africa”!!! Another BS made up by “lying Europeans”.

quote:Originally posted by xyyman:

--------------------Without data you are just another person with an opinion - DemingPosts: 9891 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |

posted 14. August 201712:01 PM
We now know he was correct. 1. West Europeans are distinct from East Europeans at high resolution genetic testing meaning one is not a subset of the other,….2. Greeks carry several SSA markers3. E1b1b_V13 has pre-historical presence in Europe.4. E1b1b-M123? Has a pre-historical presence in the Levant and Arabia5. As the recent paper(on Madagascar) has shown East Asians has an ancient direct connection to South Africans. Some West Africans may be included. Henn …the anthropologist who co-authors genetic papers speculates South Africa was the birthplace of modern humans6. The upcoming paper (abstract)on Khoi-San suggest that they occupied the Islands of Africa like Zanzibar in the Indian Ocean.

This is only now becoming interesting

----Arnaiz-Villena et al. published five scientific articles, where, among other claims, they concluded that the Greek population originates from Sub-Saharan Africa and do not cluster with other Mediterraneans.[8][14][15][16][17] The explanation they offered is that a large number of Sub-Saharans had migrated to Greece (but not to Crete) during Minoan times,[8][14][15][16] i.e. predating both Classical and Mycenaean Greece.

Hajjej et al. claimed to have confirmed the genetic relatedness between Greeks and Sub-Saharans

Also, a paper has detected clades of haplogroups J and E3b that were likely not part of pre-historic migrations into Europe, but rather spread by later historical movements. Greeks possess none of the lineages denoting North African ancestry within the last 5000 years and have only 2% (3/148) of the marker J-M267, which may reflect more recent Middle Eastern admixture.[31]Three respected geneticists, Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Alberto Piazza and Neil Risch, criticised Arnaiz-Villena's methodology.[34] They stated that "Using results from the analysis of a single marker, particularly one likely to have undergone selection, for the purpose of reconstructing genealogies is unreliable and unacceptable practice in population genetics. The limitations are made evident by the authors’ extraordinary observations that Greeks are very similar to Ethiopians and east Africans but very distant from other south Europeans; and that the Japanese are nearly identical to west and south Africans.

--------------------Without data you are just another person with an opinion - DemingPosts: 9891 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |

1. That The Guanches language is indeed connected to North Africa2. There speculation that Indo-European language has a Southern root(Dr Winters and others?)3. Most interpretation of genetic papers follow a “script” and reads like science fiction4. Meso Americans have a Polynesians source and Siberia/East Asian Source.

May be the linguist and historians on here can tell me if that Ptolemy was ACTUAL included in Egyptians ancient text?! Significance?

---

QuoteFringe linguistic theoriesArnaiz-Villena and Jorge Alonso-Garcia claim to have used Basque to decipher many of the ancient languages of the Mediterranean and Middle East which are known to be unrelated to Basque,[37][38] including Egyptian, Hittite, Sumerian, Hurrian, Ugaritic, Akkadian/Babylonian, Elamite, and Phoenician, all of which they claim have been misidentified and mistranslated by the world's linguists and epigraphers for a century. They characterize mainstream research as "science fiction stories".[39] Arnaiz-Villena's Egyptian translations, for example, include the cartouche of the bilingual Rosseta Stone in which Champollion identified the name of Ptolemy; in Arnaiz-Villena's interpretation it does not include that name, so that it is actually Arnaiz-Villena who deserves credit for deciphering the hieroglyphs.[40].

Similarly, in Arnaiz-Villena's interpretation the Code of Hammurabi contains "no hint of laws" but is a Basque funerary text,[41] and his purported Basque material proper includes the Iruña-Veleia graffiti, which had been identified as modern forgeries by a multidisciplinary team[42] half a year before his decipherment was published.[43] They also claim to be able to read poorly attested languages such as Etruscan, Iberian, Tartessian, Guanche, and Minoan, which no-one else has been able to decipher with any certainty. They posit that these are all part of a "Usko-Mediterranean" branch[44] of the speculative Dené–Caucasian language family, which they extend to include the Berber languages of North Africa.[16][45][46][47] This thesis flatly contradicts basic Egyptological, Sumerian, Semitic, Indo-European, and Mesoamerican scholarship. Phoenician, Akkadian/Babylonian, Ugaritic, and Eblaite, for example, are transparently Semitic languages, and Arnaiz-Villena excludes the rest of the Semitic languages from his family; Egyptian and Berber along with Semitic have been demonstrated to be Afro-Asiatic, and generations of linguists have been unable to find a connection between Berber and Basque or Afro-Asiatic and Basque; and Hittite is widely acclaimed as a key in the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European, which Arnaiz-Villena acknowledges is completely unrelated to Basque.

De Hoz says their work "lacks the slightest value and is contrary not just to the scientific method but to common sense", and "is an unmitigated disaster which in principle should not be reviewed", but that he does so because it was published using public funds by the respected Editorial Complutense, which might give it undeserved credibility. He calls this a "crime" against legitimate research which has gone unpublished for lack of funds.[48] Pichler likewise describes the "decipherment" of the Canary Island inscriptions as "comic", pointing out that Arnaiz-Villena "translated" an inscription of the alphabet as if it formed words (starting with "fire deceased earth prayer" in Basque), and also found it amazing that the university would publish his books.[49] The "Basque" words he translated into are themselves dubious, including some that are modern neologisms and some that are loanwords from Romance languages, such as bake (from Latin pace "peace"[37][50]), and which therefore can say nothing about ancient Basque connections. Lakarra, taking as a sample the list of 32 items entitled "Lenguaje religioso-funerario de los pueblos mediterráneos", provided by Arnaiz-Villena and Alonso as evidence for their decipherment, calculates that of the alleged Basque roots proposed by Arnaiz-Villena and Alonso, 85% are faulty or spurious, sometimes "verging on the clumsiest falsification", while even the remaining 15% is unclear.[51]

--------------------Without data you are just another person with an opinion - DemingPosts: 9891 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |

1. That The Guanches language is indeed connected to North Africa2. There speculation that Indo-European language has a Southern root(Dr Winters and others?)3. Most interpretation of genetic papers follow a “script” and reads like science fiction4. Meso Americans have a Polynesians source and Siberia/East Asian Source.

May be the linguist and historians on here can tell me if that Ptolemy was ACTUAL included in Egyptians ancient text?! Significance?

---

QuoteFringe linguistic theoriesArnaiz-Villena and Jorge Alonso-Garcia claim to have used Basque to decipher many of the ancient languages of the Mediterranean and Middle East which are known to be unrelated to Basque,[37][38] including Egyptian, Hittite, Sumerian, Hurrian, Ugaritic, Akkadian/Babylonian, Elamite, and Phoenician, all of which they claim have been misidentified and mistranslated by the world's linguists and epigraphers for a century. They characterize mainstream research as "science fiction stories".[39] Arnaiz-Villena's Egyptian translations, for example, include the cartouche of the bilingual Rosseta Stone in which Champollion identified the name of Ptolemy; in Arnaiz-Villena's interpretation it does not include that name, so that it is actually Arnaiz-Villena who deserves credit for deciphering the hieroglyphs.[40].

Similarly, in Arnaiz-Villena's interpretation the Code of Hammurabi contains "no hint of laws" but is a Basque funerary text,[41] and his purported Basque material proper includes the Iruña-Veleia graffiti, which had been identified as modern forgeries by a multidisciplinary team[42] half a year before his decipherment was published.[43] They also claim to be able to read poorly attested languages such as Etruscan, Iberian, Tartessian, Guanche, and Minoan, which no-one else has been able to decipher with any certainty. They posit that these are all part of a "Usko-Mediterranean" branch[44] of the speculative Dené–Caucasian language family, which they extend to include the Berber languages of North Africa.[16][45][46][47] This thesis flatly contradicts basic Egyptological, Sumerian, Semitic, Indo-European, and Mesoamerican scholarship. Phoenician, Akkadian/Babylonian, Ugaritic, and Eblaite, for example, are transparently Semitic languages, and Arnaiz-Villena excludes the rest of the Semitic languages from his family; Egyptian and Berber along with Semitic have been demonstrated to be Afro-Asiatic, and generations of linguists have been unable to find a connection between Berber and Basque or Afro-Asiatic and Basque; and Hittite is widely acclaimed as a key in the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European, which Arnaiz-Villena acknowledges is completely unrelated to Basque.

De Hoz says their work "lacks the slightest value and is contrary not just to the scientific method but to common sense", and "is an unmitigated disaster which in principle should not be reviewed", but that he does so because it was published using public funds by the respected Editorial Complutense, which might give it undeserved credibility. He calls this a "crime" against legitimate research which has gone unpublished for lack of funds.[48] Pichler likewise describes the "decipherment" of the Canary Island inscriptions as "comic", pointing out that Arnaiz-Villena "translated" an inscription of the alphabet as if it formed words (starting with "fire deceased earth prayer" in Basque), and also found it amazing that the university would publish his books.[49] The "Basque" words he translated into are themselves dubious, including some that are modern neologisms and some that are loanwords from Romance languages, such as bake (from Latin pace "peace"[37][50]), and which therefore can say nothing about ancient Basque connections. Lakarra, taking as a sample the list of 32 items entitled "Lenguaje religioso-funerario de los pueblos mediterráneos", provided by Arnaiz-Villena and Alonso as evidence for their decipherment, calculates that of the alleged Basque roots proposed by Arnaiz-Villena and Alonso, 85% are faulty or spurious, sometimes "verging on the clumsiest falsification", while even the remaining 15% is unclear.[51]

Arnaiz-Villena looks at blood groups and HLA.His work is pretty good, especially his work on Africans in Pre-Columbia America. People are still mad at him because he illustrated the relationship between Africans and Greeks, and his work on Jewish blood groups.

quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Very interesting...niger congo and Indo-European. This aligns with the genetics

Not only the genetics also the archaeology. The archaeology makes it clear that Africans introduced the Iberian and CHG hunter-gatherer cultures, and the Bell Beaker and later Western Eurasian cultures. Now that researchers have let the cat out of the bag about the so-called Eurasian admixture with Central and West Africans, and the haplogroups associated with the pre-Eurasian Abusir mummies that are identical to the so-called Neolithic Eurasians, we can see there is no such thing as Eurasian haplogroups, so geneticists can stop changing the names of haplogroups to try and make it appear we are different, for example V88 among Europeans is called R1b1 and R1b1a, and M1 among Eurasians is called D4.

That the Indus Civilization has ties to the Fertile Crescent is not surprising archaeologically considering that the staple crop in the former was wheat just like the latter, but there are also certain similarities in religious motifs as well which I will get into some other time.

Clyde you are deeply mistaken. Not only did the Indus Valley people indeed cultivate wheat, but it was their staple crop as I said. Yes, they farmed other crops including African millet but it was not their staple and neither is African millet evidence that the Indus people themselves were African anymore than Khorasan wheat grown by the Egyptians proof that the Egyptians were Asiatic instead of African even though Khorasan wheat was the Egyptian staple crop! LOLPosts: 23442 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |

posted 15. August 201702:54 AM
Anyway, here's something from the article that can be misleading.However, they did move east, as the study shows. The research team found that the Iranian genomes represent the main ancestors of modern-day South Asians. Whilst sharing many segments of their genome with Afghani and Pakistani populations, the almost 10,000 year old genomes from the Iranian Zagros mountains were found to be most similar to modern-day Zoroastrians from Iran. “This religious group probably mixed less with later waves of people than others in the region and therefore preserved more of that ancient ancestry,” said Broushaki.

Although the above statement is accurate, the problem however comes from the fact that Indo-Iranian speakers did not enter the region of modern Iran until 5 or 6 thousand years ago-- about half as young as the Neolithic genes, therefore to identify Neolithic Iranians with Bronze Age Iranians much less the Zoroastrian religion of Iron Age Iranians makes no sense.

posted 15. August 201710:14 AM
1. I haven't read the study....yet. But they are stating that south Asians=Dravidians?2. Modern Iranians are NOT a great example of Neolithic Iranians. Are modern Iranians, Ottoman Turks?3. Who ever the Parsi's are they a a better representation of Neolithic Iranians.4. A fundamental population change over in Iran took place within the last 1500years.

---Like sugar in milk": reconstructing the genetic history of the Parsi population.- Chaubey G1, Ayub Q2

Quote:AbstractBACKGROUND:The Parsis are one of the smallest religious communities in the world. To understand the population structure and demographic history of this group in detail, we analyzed Indian and Pakistani Parsi populations using high-resolution genetic variation data on autosomal and uniparental loci (Y-chromosomal and mitochondrial DNA). Additionally, we also assayed mitochondrial DNA polymorphisms among ancient Parsi DNA samples excavated from Sanjan, in present day Gujarat, the place of their original settlement in India.RESULTS:Among present-day populations, the Parsis are genetically closest to Iranian and the Caucasus populations rather than their South Asian neighbors. They also share the highest number of haplotypes with present-day Iranians and we estimate that the admixture of the Parsis with Indian populations occurred ~1,200 years ago. Enriched homozygosity in the Parsi reflects their recent isolation and inbreeding. We also observed 48% South-Asian-specific mitochondrial lineages among the ancient samples, which might have resulted from the assimilation of local females during the initial settlement. Finally, we show that Parsis are genetically closer to Neolithic Iranians than to modern Iranians, who have witnessed a more recent wave of admixture from the Near East.CONCLUSIONS:Our results are consistent with the historically-recorded migration of the Parsi populations to South Asia in the 7th century and in agreement with their assimilation into the Indian sub-continent's population and cultural milieu "like sugar in milk". Moreover, in a wider context our results support a major demographic transition in West Asia due to the Islamic conquest.

--------------------Without data you are just another person with an opinion - DemingPosts: 9891 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |

quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:LOL. Wheat was cultivated at Mehrgarh, not in the Indus Valley. Mehrgarh is 5000 years older than the Indus Valley Civilization.

LOL indeed! And where exactly is Mehrgarh??Mehrgar, is a Neolithic (7000 BCE to c. 2500/2000 BCE) site located near the Bolan Pass on the Kacchi Plain of Balochistan, Pakistan, to the west of the Indus River valley.

This is like saying the neolithic culture of Nabta Kiseiba is not in the Nile Valley but some ways off to the west of it so Nabta is not a Nile Valley civilizaton.

And NO, wheat was also cultivated in the Indus River Valley proper as its staple crop which is stated in the source I cited as well as EVERY source on the Indus/Harappan civilization!

Funny that you brought up Mehrgarh, as I was just going to post the fact that Mehrgarh was the precursor to Harappa proper. Mehrgarh which is 7,000-2,000 BCE and Harappa which is 3300–1900 BCE which makes Mehrgarh older by only 3,700 years NOT 5,000 which means even your math is wrong. And it really makes little difference since most scholars include Mehgarh as part of the Indus Civilization!

Remind me, what are your views on the biological affinity of the ancient Indus Valley people? I've always imagined them to be primarily descended from the aboriginal people of the Indian subcontinent, or what some genetic studies have called "Ancestral South Indian" (ASI). In which case, they would have been quite dark-skinned, like Australasian or Negrito peoples. Or do you think they were closer to these prehistoric Iranians?
Posts: 4138 | From: California | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |

posted 15. August 201701:38 PM
Ha! HA! HA! You are hilarious. A real clown. No fool. Stop mis-directing. You really play on the minds of newbies. I did not read this RECENT paper. " Like sugar in milk": reconstructing the genetic history of the Parsi population.- Chaubey G1, Ayub Q2". I have read many OTHER papers to talk with confidence on the subject broached in the OT. This paper I cited added fuel to the flame. SMH. You are good. Trained in psyche warfare?

quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:Originally posted by xyyman:[QB] 1. I haven't read the study....yet. But they are stating that south Asians=Dravidians?

So you have 10 posts in a thread about an article you haven't read?

--------------------Without data you are just another person with an opinion - DemingPosts: 9891 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |

posted 15. August 201701:52 PM
Dr Winters said "LOL. Wheat was cultivated at Mehrgarh, not in the Indus Valley . Mehrgarh is 5000 years older than the Indus Valley Civilization."

Mary said said- "Funny that you brought up Mehrgarh, as I was just going to post the fact that Mehrgarh was the precursor to Harappa proper. Mehrgarh which is 7,000-2,000 BCE and Harappa which is 3300–1900 BCE which makes Mehrgarh older by only 3,700 years NOT 5,000 which means even your math is wrong. And it really makes little difference since most scholars include Mehgarh as part of the Indus Civilization!"

WTF is wrong with this prickkkk?! Dr Winters point is Mehrgarh is OLDER than the Indus Valley civilization. Caught in BS Mary tries to sidestep and worm his way out of it. SMH. She just can't help herself.

--------------------Without data you are just another person with an opinion - DemingPosts: 9891 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |

Sedentism, farming, and agriculture was invented some 10,000 years ago in a region between southeastern Anatolia, Iran, Iraq, and Syria, an area traditionally labeled as the Fertile Crescent. Most of the technology and culture associated with farming including domestic sheep, goat, cattle, and pig originated here. The transition from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle to agriculture and sedentism was considered such a radical change in human ecology that the term Neolithic revolution was coined for it. Some 2,000 years later, the new Neolithic lifestyle appeared in southeastern Europe and shortly afterwards in Central and Mediterranean Europe.

An international research team led by palaeogeneticists of Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (JGU) published a study in the journal Science (open access) showing that the earliest farmers from the Zagros mountains in Iran, i.e., the eastern part of the Fertile Crescent, are neither the main ancestors of Europe’s first farmers nor of modern-day Europeans.

AbstractWe sequenced Early Neolithic genomes from the Zagros region of Iran (eastern Fertile Crescent), where some of the earliest evidence for farming is found, and identify a previously uncharacterized population that is neither ancestral to the first European farmers nor has contributed significantly to the ancestry of modern Europeans. These people are estimated to have separated from Early Neolithic farmers in Anatolia some 46-77,000 years ago and show affinities to modern day Pakistani and Afghan populations, but particularly to Iranian Zoroastrians. We conclude that multiple, genetically differentiated hunter-gatherer populations adopted farming in SW-Asia, that components of pre-Neolithic population structure were preserved as farming spread into neighboring regions, and that the Zagros region was the cradle of eastward expansion.

The Neolithic transition in SW-Asia involved the appearance of different domestic species, particularly crops, in different parts of the Neolithic core zone, with no single center (20). Early evidence of plant cultivation and goat management between the 10th and the 8th millennium BCE highlight the Zagros as a key region in the Neolithisation process (1). Given the evidence of domestic species movement from East to West across SW-Asia (21), it is surprising that EN human genomes from the Zagros are not closely related to those from NW-Anatolia and Europe. Instead they represent a previously undescribed Neolithic population. Our data show that the chain of Neolithic migration into Europe does not reach back to the eastern Fertile Crescent, also raising questions about whether intermediate populations in southeastern and Central Anatolia form part of this expansion. On the other hand, it seems probable that the Zagros region was the source of an eastern expansion of the SW-Asian domestic plant and animal economy. Our inferred persistence of ancient Zagros genetic components in modern day S-Asians lends weight to a strong demic component to this expansion.

quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Dr Winters said "LOL. Wheat was cultivated at Mehrgarh, not in the Indus Valley . Mehrgarh is 5000 years older than the Indus Valley Civilization."

Mary said said- "Funny that you brought up Mehrgarh, as I was just going to post the fact that Mehrgarh was the precursor to Harappa proper. Mehrgarh which is 7,000-2,000 BCE and Harappa which is 3300–1900 BCE which makes Mehrgarh older by only 3,700 years NOT 5,000 which means even your math is wrong. And it really makes little difference since most scholars include Mehgarh as part of the Indus Civilization!"

WTF is wrong with this prickkkk?! Dr Winters point is Mehrgarh is OLDER than the Indus Valley civilization. Caught in BS Mary tries to sidestep and worm his way out of it. SMH. She just can't help herself.

He dosen't understand that Mehgarh was a culture developed by the Munda people web page .

In the sub-continent of India, there were several main groups. The earliest inhabitants of India were the Negritos, and this was followed by the Proto-Australoid, the Mongoloid and the KushitesDravidians).

The Proto-Australoid race, Mongoloid race and Africoid/ Mediterranean skeletal remains were all found at Harappan sites. The Australoid people are a mixed group that combines the classical Mongoloid and pgymies. The speech of this group of Austroloids is believed to be Austric, a specimen of this language survives in the Munda speech.(Thapar 1972,p.26) The Africoid/Mediterranean group is associated with Dravidian culture.

The Negritos founded the earliest culture in the Indus Valley at Mehrgarh in 6000 B.C. They had domesticated goats and sheep and grew cereals.

posted 15. August 201702:50 PM
The Dravidians and Mande began to migrate out of Africa by 2800BC. They were part of the C-Group. They first settled in Iran and from here expanded into Central Asia and the Indus Valley.

B.B. Lal ("The Only Asian expedition in threatened Nubia:Work by an Indian Mission at Afyeh and Tumas", The Illustrated London Times , 20 April 1963) and Indian Egyptologist has shown conclusively that the Dravidians originated in the Saharan area 5000 years ago. He claims they came from Kush, in the Fertile African Crescent and were related to the C-Group people who founded the Kerma dynasty in the 3rd millennium B.C. (Lal 1963) The Dravidians used a common black-and-red pottery, which spread from Nubia, through modern Ethiopia, Arabia, Iran into India as a result of the Proto-Saharan dispersal.

B.B. Lal (1963) a leading Indian archaeologist in India has observed that the black and red ware (BRW) dating to the Kerma dynasty of Nubia, is related to the Dravidian megalithic pottery. Singh (1982) believes that this pottery radiated from Nubia to India. This pottery along with wavy-line pottery is associated with the Saharo-Sudanese pottery tradition of ancient Africa . I call these people the Proto Saharans. I discuss their history here:

Aravaanan (1980) has written extensively on the African and Dravidian relations. He has illustrated that the Africans and Dravidian share many physical similarities including the dolichocephalic indexes (Aravaanan 1980,pp.62-263; Raceand History.com,2006), platyrrhine nasal index (Aravaanan 1980,pp.25-27), stature (31-32) and blood type (Aravaanan 1980,34-35; RaceandHistory.com,2006). Aravaanan (1980,p.40) also presented much evidence for analogous African and Dravidian cultural features including the chipping of incisor teeth and the use of the lost wax process to make bronze works of arts (Aravaanan 1980,p.41).

There are also similarities between the Dravidian and African religions. For example, both groups held a common interest in the cult of the Serpent and believed in a Supreme God, who lived in a place of peace and tranquility ( Thundy, p.87; J.T. Cornelius,"Are Dravidians Dynastic Egyptians", Trans. of the Archaeological Society of South India 1951-1957, pp.90-117; and U.P. Upadhyaya, "Dravidian and Negro-African", International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 5, no.1) .

There are also affinities between the names of many gods including Amun/Amma and Murugan . Murugan the Dravidian god of the mountains parallels a common god in East Africa worshipped by 25 ethnic groups is called Murungu, the god who resides in the mountains .

Up until the South Indian megalithic period the Dravidians continued to use black-and-red ware and Libyco-Berber/Indus Valley writing. Under the influence of the Ethiopians the script changed into what it is today. The architecture of the Dravidians is an ornamented pyramid with statues and other featured added within the construction of the pyramid.

Archaeological and linguistic evidence indicates that the Dravidians were the founders of the Harappan culture which extended from the Indus Valley through northeastern Afghanistan, on into Turkestan. The Harappan civilization existed from 2600-1700 B.C. The Harappan civilization was twice the size the Old Kingdom of Egypt. In addition to trade relations with Mesopotamia and Iran, the Harappan city states also had active trade relations with the Central Asian peoples.(Winters 1990) Fairservis (1975) makes it clear that early cultures of Baluchistan are analogous to Early Dynastic Sumerian, this movement eastward of the ancient Kushites led to the rise of the Indus cultures. The Sumerians probably called the Indus Valley Dilmun. Dilmun was a rich trade center that provided Sumer with many valuable trade items.

There is physical evidence which suggest an African origin for the Dravidians. The Dravidians live in South India. The Dravidian ethnic group includes the Tamil, Kurukh,Malayalam, Kananda (Kanarese), Tulu, Telugu and etc. The civilization here is called the megalithic, The ancient Indo-Aryan writings make it clear that the Indians were dark-skinned (varna) and had flat noses. (Durant 1935, p.396) This fact is supported by the Ali Tiraavitar (Old Dravidians) who are black as their African brothers with a difference in hair texture. In ancient Tamil poems they are described as mamai (black). In addition, the ancient Dravidians practiced a matriarchal system in Kerala and South Kanara.

In addition among the ali tiravitar, the system of inheritance passes from the uncle to his nephews, instead of to his sons (maru makkal Tayam) as in Africa. And in both South India and the Western Sudan of Africa, the dead were buried in terra cotta jars.

The most interesting fact about this evidence is that the Dravidian language is closely related to the Niger-Congo group. There are other linguistic groups that separate the Niger-Congo speakers from the Dravidians. The fact that they are genetically related indicates that the Dravidians recently came to India.

The genetics of an early Neolithic pastoralist from the Zagros, IranM. Gallego-Llorente 2016

AbstractThe agricultural transition profoundly changed human societies. We sequenced and analysed the first genome (1.39x) of an early Neolithic woman from Ganj Dareh, in the Zagros Mountains of Iran, a site with early evidence for an economy based on goat herding, ca. 10,000 BP. We show that Western Iran was inhabited by a population genetically most similar to hunter-gatherers from the Caucasus, but distinct from the Neolithic Anatolian people who later brought food production into Europe. The inhabitants of Ganj Dareh made little direct genetic contribution to modern European populations, suggesting those of the Central Zagros were somewhat isolated from other populations of the Fertile Crescent. Runs of homozygosity are of a similar length to those from Neolithic farmers, and shorter than those of Caucasus and Western Hunter-Gatherers, suggesting that the inhabitants of Ganj Dareh did not undergo the large population bottleneck suffered by their northern neighbours. While some degree of cultural diffusion between Anatolia, Western Iran and other neighbouring regions is possible, the genetic dissimilarity between early Anatolian farmers and the inhabitants of Ganj Dareh supports a model in which Neolithic societies in these areas were distinct.

The agricultural transition started in a region comprising the Ancient Near East and Anatolia ~12,000 years ago with the first Pre-Pottery Neolithic villages and the first domestication of cereals and legumes1,2. Archaeological evidence suggests a complex scenario of multiple domestications in a number of areas3, coupled with examples of trade4. Ancient DNA (aDNA) has revealed that this cultural package was later brought into Europe by dispersing farmers from Anatolia (so called ‘demic’ diffusion, as opposed to non-demic cultural diffusion5,6) ~8,400 years ago. However a lack of aDNA from early Neolithic individuals from the Near East leaves a key question unanswered: was the agricultural transition developed by one major population group spanning the Near East, including Anatolia and the Central Zagros Mountains; or was the region inhabited by genetically diverse populations, as is suggested by the heterogeneous mode and timing of the appearance of early domesticates at different localities?

To answer this question, we sequenced the genome of an early Neolithic female from Ganj Dareh, GD13a, from the Central Zagros (Western Iran), dated to 10000-9700 cal BP7, a region located at the eastern edge of the Near East. Ganj Dareh is well known for providing the earliest evidence of herd management of goats beginning at 9,900 BP7

The presence of two distinct lineages (Anatolian-like agriculturalists and Zagros mountain herders) in the Near East at the beginning of the Neolithic transition raises an interesting question regarding the independence of innovations arising at different locations. Even within the Central Zagros, economies vary greatly in their rate and pathway towards Neolithisation35. Ganj Dareh, in the high Zagros, has the earliest known evidence for goat domestication7,8,9, and the foothills of the Zagros mountains have also been argued to have been the site of early farming3. In addition, early sites such as Sheikh-e Abad (11.650-9,600 cal BP) provide evidence of early stages of barley cultivation38. Were these innovations independent of similar achievements that made up the Neolithic package that North West Anatolians brought into Europe? Or were they exchanged culturally? If the latter, it would imply a cultural diffusion in the absence of much genetic interchange.
Posts: 31767 | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |

quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Dr Winters said "LOL. Wheat was cultivated at Mehrgarh, not in the Indus Valley . Mehrgarh is 5000 years older than the Indus Valley Civilization."

Mary said said- "Funny that you brought up Mehrgarh, as I was just going to post the fact that Mehrgarh was the precursor to Harappa proper. Mehrgarh which is 7,000-2,000 BCE and Harappa which is 3300–1900 BCE which makes Mehrgarh older by only 3,700 years NOT 5,000 which means even your math is wrong. And it really makes little difference since most scholars include Mehgarh as part of the Indus Civilization!"

WTF is wrong with this prickkkk?! Dr Winters point is Mehrgarh is OLDER than the Indus Valley civilization. Caught in BS Mary tries to sidestep and worm his way out of it. SMH. She just can't help herself.

Good point.

quote:The vanishing millets of the Indus civilization

Steve Weber and Arunima Kashyap

Abstract

The importance and influence of small millets during the Indus civilization is increasingly evident. The presence of both wild and cultivated millet seeds recovered from Harappan sites suggests that they played an important role in some regions of the civilization. Yet many of these small-grained cereals are rarely used today. This paper explores the role of small millets during the Indus civilization and attempts to explain why the use of these crops has declined so significantly over the last 5,000 years.

We do not have Lucas Martin and DNATribes to show us how it is done any more. But we have more freeware and more sophisticated tools. What about this?

Download Abusir mummies genome which are BAM Files. Convert the BAM file to FASTQ. I believe IGV tool can do that. Run this FASTQ file in STRait Razor. Problem is I do not have a Linux OS. I understand IBM clones can either a Windows OS or Linux. With dual booth up. I just started playing around with MAC OS Lion. I am new to these systems outside of Windows. Thoughts?

Oh! The other problem is only THREE complete genome of the Abusir was provided. Therefore only 3 datasets needs to be processed. The remaining mummies only their uniparental markers were released. Am I correct.

Am I talking to the wall? He! He! HE!

===

STRait Razor: A length-based forensic STR allele-calling tool for use with second generation sequencing data

AbstractRecent studies have demonstrated the capability of second generation sequencing (SGS) to provide coverage of short tandem repeats (STRs) found within the human genome. However, there are relatively few bioinformatic software packages capable of detecting these markers in the raw sequence data. The extant STR-calling tools are sophisticated, but are not always applicable to the analysis of the STR loci commonly used in forensic analyses. STRait Razor is a newly developed Perl-based software tool that runs on the Linux/Unix operating system and is designed to detect forensically-relevant STR alleles in FASTQ sequence data, based on allelic length. It is capable of analyzing STR loci with repeat motifs ranging from simple to complex without the need for extensive allelic sequence data. STRait Razor is designed to interpret both single-end and paired-end data and relies on intelligent parallel processing to reduce analysis time. Users are presented with a number of customization options, including variable mismatch detection parameters, as well as the ability to easily allow for the detection of alleles at new loci. In its current state, the software detects alleles for 44 autosomal and Y-chromosome STR loci. The study described herein demonstrates that STRait Razor is capable of detecting STR alleles in data generated by multiple library preparation methods and two Illumina® sequencing instruments, with 100% concordance. The data also reveal noteworthy concepts related to the effect of different preparation chemistries and sequencing parameters on the bioinformatic detection of STR alleles.

--------------------Without data you are just another person with an opinion - DemingPosts: 9891 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |

Remind me, what are your views on the biological affinity of the ancient Indus Valley people? I've always imagined them to be primarily descended from the aboriginal people of the Indian subcontinent, or what some genetic studies have called "Ancestral South Indian" (ASI). In which case, they would have been quite dark-skinned, like Australasian or Negrito peoples. Or do you think they were closer to these prehistoric Iranians?

Well without good genetic sampling of the Indus populations (they were a lot of them) along the Indus region, we can't be sure. But for a long while even before this study came out, I have suspected that the forebears of this culture i.e. Neolithic forebears who cultivated wheat came from Southwest Asia. I concluded this from certain archaeological resemblances as well as hg J2, thus they represent ANI people. Many people try to identify ANI with Indo-Aryans but as you're aware ANI predates any Aryan migration and dates at exactly the time of the neolithic.

quote:Originally posted by xyyman:WTF is wrong with this prickkkk?! Dr Winters point is Mehrgarh is OLDER than the Indus Valley civilization. Caught in BS Mary tries to sidestep and worm his way out of it. SMH. She just can't help herself.

And when exactly did I disagree with Mehrgarh being older than Harappa??! Did you read anything I said, or has your dementia impaired your reading comprehension as well?? My point is that Mehrgarh is acknowledged to be the predecessor to Harappa just like Nabta Kiseiba being a predecessor to Qustul or other later Nile Valley cultures. My point also stands that the staple crop in Harappa was also wheat NOT African millet!

Funny how instead of refuting anything I say, you instead resort to indirect ad-hominem name-calling and referring to me as a female named "Mary"?? LOL How about you address me directly gramps and stop being a *itch wanking Clyde, as if he knows what he's talking about! LOL

quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:He dosen't understand that Mehgarh was a culture developed by the Munda people web page .

LMAO We don't even know what language or languages the Harappan people spoke, so how did you come to the conclusion that the Merhgarh people were Munda speakers??!

And no, I want evidence from real experts not sources written from YOU a pseudo-expert.

quote:In the sub-continent of India, there were several main groups. The earliest inhabitants of India were the Negritos, and this was followed by the Proto-Australoid, the Mongoloid and the KushitesDravidians).

The Proto-Australoid race, Mongoloid race and Africoid/ Mediterranean skeletal remains were all found at Harappan sites. The Australoid people are a mixed group that combines the classical Mongoloid and pgymies. The speech of this group of Austroloids is believed to be Austric, a specimen of this language survives in the Munda speech.(Thapar 1972,p.26) The Africoid/Mediterranean group is associated with Dravidian culture.

The Negritos founded the earliest culture in the Indus Valley at Mehrgarh in 6000 B.C. They had domesticated goats and sheep and grew cereals.

.

Again, your problem is that you resort to racial typology which has been debunked and further relating such typology to langauges.

So-called "negrito" peoples in India are but a tiny minority scattered in very rural areas of Southern India. The people of the Indus were never described as "negrito" though interestingly scholars like Keith and Buxton say they bear a resemblance to early Mesopotamian crania in Kish and Al-Ubaid and other scholars like Morant and Stoessiger even say they had resemblances to early Nile Valley crania due to certain features like dolichophally and prognathism. Of course in your mind such features equates to African but you're just as erroneous as those Euronuts who say those same features are Asiatic.

By the way, the woman above is not South Indian but is from Rajasthan in northern or central India.

posted 17. August 201707:37 AM
You guys are the expert on crania and morphology. But if what is stated is true then the genetics aligns with the crania studies.Sergi suggested the early Indus people were from the Nile Valley(Africa) also. DNATribes analyzed the EEF/Basal Eurasian(which is from Neolithic Africa) suggested they are also responsible for the Indus Valley Civilization.

The genetics aligns with the morphology!! BTW - Size of population is insignificant. There more Chinese people in the world than Africans yet Africans are substantially more diverse and where humanity evolved. We are now concluding that the FEATURES and people are indeed African. Can't wait for the DNA of the Harrapan peoples come out. It was supposed to be released several months ago.

Quote:So-called "negrito" peoples in India are BUT a tiny minority SCATTERED in very rural areas of Southern India. The people of the Indus were never described as "negrito" though interestingly scholars like Keith and Buxton say they bear a resemblance to early Mesopotamian crania in Kish and Al-Ubaid and other scholars like Morant and Stoessiger even say they had resemblances to early Nile Valley crania due to certain features like dolichophally and prognathism. Of course in your mind such features equates to African but you're just as erroneous as those Euronuts who say those same features are Asiatic.

--------------------Without data you are just another person with an opinion - DemingPosts: 9891 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |

quote:Originally posted by xyyman: You guys are the expert on crania and morphology. But if what is stated is true then the genetics aligns with the crania studies.Sergi suggested the early Indus people were from the Nile Valley(Africa) also. DNATribes analyzed the EEF/Basal Eurasian(which is from Neolithic Africa) suggested they are also responsible for the Indus Valley Civilization.

The genetics aligns with the morphology!! BTW - Size of population is insignificant. There more Chinese people in the world than Africans yet Africans are substantially more diverse and where humanity evolved. We are now concluding that the FEATURES and people are indeed African. Can't wait for the DNA of the Harrapan peoples come out. It was supposed to be released several months ago.

Quote:So-called "negrito" peoples in India are BUT a tiny minority SCATTERED in very rural areas of Southern India. The people of the Indus were never described as "negrito" though interestingly scholars like Keith and Buxton say they bear a resemblance to early Mesopotamian crania in Kish and Al-Ubaid and other scholars like Morant and Stoessiger even say they had resemblances to early Nile Valley crania due to certain features like dolichophally and prognathism. Of course in your mind such features equates to African but you're just as erroneous as those Euronuts who say those same features are Asiatic.

xyyman writing Black history, is a struggle against the Euronuts' war of attrition in relation to HISTORY and now genetics.

Luckily, the heroes of Black history: Carter G. Woodson, DuBois, J.A. Rogers and etc., made it clear that the history we were taught was wrong Blacks did not only contribute, but founded civilization. Here most readers of the forum, have an inferiority complex, so they are waiting for Europeans or Blacks acknowledged by Eurocentrics like Keita and Gates--to confirm the findings of the Real Black scholars, before they accept their findings, so they can imagine the idea that the Egyptians were Black is mainstream. But this is not going to happen.

To tell the truth about our history would invalidate the Fake history they have taught the world the past 100 years. Now that you and I began to look at the supplementary data accompanying most researchers we have pulled the cover off the lies they were teaching. The Reich and Max Plank institute conspiracy is being overthrown, because Europeans not belonging to their cohort are publishing articles on West and Central Africans, carrying Eurasian genes, we can now understand the reality that the haplogroups carried by the Abusir mummies reflect actual African--not Eurasian genes. The key to this deception was flipping the script. They took the African--Kushite--heritage of the Sumerians, Elamites, Hyksos out of their history text to deny the unity of Black civilizations. A similar trick is taking place now as Europeans flip the script, and claim the Melanesians and Africans are not related.

LOL.If the crania in Kish and al-Ubaid, resembled the Indus Valley crania they were saying the people were "Negroes".

There is textual evidence supporting a relationship between the founders of Sumer, Elam and Dilmun. Col. Henry Rawlinson , used textual evidence to determine that a link existed between the Mesopotamians to their ancestors in Africa . Rawlinson called these people Kushites.

There is a positive relationship between crania from Africa and Eurasia. The archaeologist Marcel-Auguste Dieulafoy (Dieulafoy,2004) and Hanberry (1981) maintains that their was a Sub-Saharan strain in Persia . These researchers maintain that it was evident that an Ethiopian dynasty ruled Elam from a perusal of its statuary of the royal family and members of the army ( Dieulafoy, 2004; Dieulafoy, 2010;Hansberry,1981). Dieulafoy (2010 ) noted that the textual evidence and iconography make it clear that the Elamites were Africans, and part of the Kushite confederation .Dieulafoy (2010) made it clear that the Elamites at Susa were Sub-Saharan Africans.

Marcel Dieulafoy and M. de Quatrefages observed that the craniometrics of the ancient Elamites of Susa indicate that they were Sub-Saharan Africans or Negroes (Dieulafoy,2010).Ancient Sub-Saharan African skeletons have also been found in Mesopotamia (Tomczyk et al, 2010). The craniometric data indicates that continuity existed between ancient and medieval Sub-Saharan Africans in Mesopotamia (Ricault & Waelkens,2008).

In principle anyone can do it. Set up a Linux box or runtime environment, download the tools, download the files, and analyze away. From what I understand the reason most people don't do it is because it is a big pain in the ass - the files are frequently huge, the tools aren't user-friendly and can be hard to install properly, and there is a lot of technical detail involved in the processing. I've never done it because I am too lazy.